S&L 935/4

[Dave Kane]

We have fairly well determined that the flat and rounded strike in combination with a poorly defined dent row and lack of frosting are red flags to raise the question of POST war production....even some '57 Crosses are sharper in strike and row dents than these.


Now, that said, I wonder if it would be beneficial to look at the '800' fonts? These stamps have a signature all their own....

Is it possible utilizing the 'strike' and its sharpness to reasonably determine early, mid and later war? In other words would a Cross, pristine in strike without flaws of any type be found with the larger 800 or the micro 800.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

for me and a lot of others it's not about your cross it's about finding out what is eventually post war and what is not. Here is what we have to work with (not counting the 57's) with the B-Type:

- 935-4
- 935
- 800
- 800-4
- 800 incuse
- unmarked and variations

in no particular order other then the 935-4 as IMHO being the first B-Type.

Now, I think we meanwhile all agree that the 935 is post war and also the unmarked examples. Which gives us this:

- 935-4 (pre-45)

- 800
- 800-4
- 800 incuse

- 935 (post 45)
- unmarekd and variations (post 45)

This leaves - at this point in time - the (3) 800 types in a grey area. This can very well be all good or all bad or any combination thereoff. I remember the audience of the flawed 800 A-Type which were deemed post war and now are deemed pre-45 with (IMHO) 100% certainty.

Again, at this point in time the only visual anchor we can fix some dates on is the dent row. I stand to my position that the 935-4 dent row is the starting point and that form there on a deterioration took place over time. Another possible guideline might be other die deterioration, but I really don't see that judging by the sharpness of some early 57's. Frosting and the use or lack thereoff might be another usefull avenue.

I always ask myself this question and I think it's a very valid one: Why did S&L use the PKZ code later on (that's easy - they had to) and why did they drop it with the 800, 800 incuse and 935 ??? Against all established rules and regulations?

Here are some possible answers:

- 800, 800 incuse and 935 were made before the 935-4 (highly unlikely)
- S&L did not want the crosses to be identified (post war)
- oversight
- whatever else ...

And why did S&L all over sudden use an incuse stamp? And a different stamp for the 935?

This is what we need to find out - not whether your cross is good or bad. That will be just part of it in the big scope of things.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Well Dietrich, I wish that were true but it has been about my cross way too much. We both, all of us know why. It 'appeared' in an author's book certain people would like to discredit.

[Brian S]

....even some '57 Crosses are sharper in strike and row dents than these.

Do you EVEN know what you are saying? SOME '57 crosses. Does THAT not at least raise a single question in your mind as to what is going on with frames. Based on all yours and Dietrich's assumptions wouldn't ALL '57 crosses have EXACTLY the same dent row. Come on Dave, think this through for a moment.

[Brian S]

....even some '57 Crosses are sharper in strike and row dents than these.

OK, that's a stretch. Let me help it out...

SOME '57 Cross are sharper in strike.

Crosses show a timeline based on dent row crispness.

Does NO ONE see the inconguity with these statements? It's a huge hole boys. I would assume even a few people here would go duh...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Well Dietrich, I wish that were true but it has been about my cross way too much. We both, all of us know why. It 'appeared' in an author's book certain people would like to discredit.

Okay Brian, I think you made your point. Now let's try to get away from this and let's discuss the issue at hand with logic and without emotions.

Let's start with the early 57's - the 800 marked ones. Let's see some dent rows and let's look at the strike sharpness and finish. And yes, let's keep in mind the possibility of a batch run, a bin and what else there might be to screw up a time line. But remember, nobody in - let's say 1955 - knew what might be needed in 57!

I guess by doing so we could establish a 'bracket' between the 935-4 and the 57's. Pure logic.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

And how does the one in the bottom of this photo fit into the timeline Dietrich. Dietrich or George/both of you please?

[Dave Kane]

[QUOTE=Brian S]

SOME '57 Cross are sharper in strike.

Crosses show a timeline based on dent row crispness.

UOTE]


Yes, now you are with it!

[Brian S]

I know I am the problem is bringing you up to speed on the OBVIOUS conundrum.

SOME '57 crosses are crisp. Come on Dave do the simple math.

If you tell me A does not Equal B and B does not equal C, how does A = C?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

I think that could be possible, the 'some' 57 crosses. The early ones are sharp, the later ones are less defined. Here is a 800 marked 57.

[Brian S]

And how does the one in the bottom of this photo fit into the timeline Dietrich. Dietrich or George/both of you please?

Fine Dietrich, then what is 'sharp' about the dent row on the bottom photo above?

[Dave Kane]

Brian, it's been said numerous times and in several different ways but you just won't accept it.

Although it's not about your Cross you have an opportunity, by way of your Cross to dump these assertions by allowing a comparrison of the dent row regarding depth, sharpness and number!

Then, we might move on to the #'s and font associated with them..

[Dave Kane]

Fine Dietrich, then what is 'sharp' about the dent row on the bottom photo above?

Dietrich, feel to show your pics (of my Cross)....Brian, Dietrich used a microscope cam....all I used was Sony!

[Brian S]

Great example of a crisp '57 Dietrich, now compare to the one in the bottom photo I posted...

[Brian S]

Dietrich, feel to show your pics (of my Cross)....Brian, Dietrich used a microscope cam....all I used was Sony!

I'm glad excuses work for your cross Dave...